BLOOMFIELD, NJ— Newark Superior Court Judge Martin Cronin said during a court hearing on Friday, Sept. 23, that he will determine if the charge of official misconduct against Bloomfield Councilman Elias Chalet should be dismissed.
Chalet was indicted in January 2016 by a state grand jury on five counts stemming from the proposed purchase, by the township, of a parcel of land.
Chalet was charged with official misconduct because he is alleged to have promised the property owner that he would expedite the purchase.
However, during the hearing, Chalet’s attorney, Peter Till, told Cronin the law says that official misconduct is an act. His client, he said, only made a promise.
“Two months in advance of the grand jury, Bloomfield had decided to purchase the property,” Till argued. “There was no action my client could have taken. The action had already been taken.”
Till said that if the official misconduct count is dismissed, the other counts should be dismissed.
“That doesn’t fly with me,” Cronin replied.
In addition to the official misconduct charge, Chalet has been indicted for bribery; acceptance of unlawful benefits; tampering with evidence; and hindering prosecution.
Chalet is alleged to have taken $15,000, in two payments, on Oct. 23, 2015, and Nov 16, 2015, from the property owner. It is also alleged, by the NJ Office of the Attorney General, that Chalet was taped receiving the money.
Cronin asked Till if he were saying that since his client did not cast a vote, he did not commit an act.
“Yes,” said Till.
Cronin read part of the statute relating to official misconduct.
“Commits an act relating to his office,” he read.
Cronin said the grand jury had received evidence that Chalet had made a promise to “speed up the sale.”
Cronin turned his attention to the prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Brian Falk. He told Falk that the law defines an official misconduct as “acts relating to his office.”
“What are the acts the state is relying on?” Cronin said.
“His promise to perform,” Falk said.
“Is the official act?” Cronin said.
Cronin said that Chalet did not perform an official act with only a promise.
“The act wasn’t completed because he was arrested,” Falk said.
Chalet, a Realtor, was arrested after allegedly receiving the second payment outside his Broad Street business office. Chalet was arrested inside his office. But before authorities could arrest him, he locked himself in his office for 45 minutes, according to the Attorney General’s Office. No money was found in his office.
Cronin said the Legislature, when it created the official misconduct statute, could have used broader language but it did not.
“That gives me concern,” he said, “if the promise is enough for the count of official misconduct.”
Falk referenced a court decision that dealt with the significance of personal influence.
“Did Mr. Chalet influence anyone on the council?” Cronin said. “I did not see any evidence in the grand jury that Chalet used his influence on the council.”
“There’s nothing that says he tried to influence anyone,” Till interjected.
Falk took a different approach. He told Cronin that Chalet made an attempt to commit official misconduct.
“Are you arguing that now?” Cronin said.
Falk said he was.
“Is a promise enough or not enough for an official misconduct?” Cronin said.
Till again interjected, saying that Chalet performed nothing.
“There is no quid pro quo,” Till said. “There was an act to speed up but no act except a promise.”
Cronin asked Falk why was Chalet arrested before he voted on the purchase of the property? Falk said he did not think law enforcement should be punished for stopping a crime. But Cronin said if there were evidence against Chalet, the property sale could have been blocked.
“And it would have been clearly misconduct if the vote had taken place,” Cronin said.
“Without a vote, no act,” Till said.
Cronin told Falk he needed to pursue an attempt at misconduct and submit new documents to him.
“Can a promise to do something rise to an act that is prohibited?” Cronin said.
He said he would give his decision at the next meeting and scheduled it for Oct. 28, at 2 p.m. He said it would be a short meeting.
Following the hearing, Till said that the charges brought against his client were a rush to judgement.
“An attempt is not a criminal offense,” he said referencing Chalet’s alleged promise to expedite the purchase.
Till displayed a copy of the minutes from the Sept. 21, 2015, closed council session. This session was without the public present. Circled in black ink was the information that the council had discussed purchasing the property “using proceeds from the water capital budget.”
He reiterated his contention that the official misconduct charge is the foundation for the bribery charge and the acceptance of unlawful benefits charge.
“There are many points that have yet to come out,” he said.
story updated Sept. 30, 2016
About the Author
